Is Haalee, human?

I've followed David Simpson throughout his entire Post-Human series, and was really excited upon discovering this novel here. In Dawn of the Singularity, humanity is led to even greater technological progression by an artificial intelligence named Haalee. In what I assume to be paying homage to the A.I. Hal, from 2001: A Space Odyssey by Arthur C. Clarke, Haalee exhibits one crucial difference: she doesn't seem much different from ourselves. Given this indistinction, does Haalee also deserve the rights that come with it? Why?

Background

In a live, televised group discussion about Haalee, the developers Mac and Liam respond to the general belief that Haalee will be a new operating system for an existing robotics company. In addition to stating that she won't be the new OS, they also imply that Haalee is a "who" not an "it."

Of course not, Mac answered. And you'll notice we don't refer to Haalee as 'it.'

"Who"

The fact that Haalee is referred to as a "who" is important, for what are typically addressing when we use it? I naturally assume it to mean a person and most dictionaries seem to agree:

Dictionary.com

Pronoun; possessive whose; objective whom

1. what person or persons

TheFreeDictionary by Farlex

pron.

1. what or which person or persons

We typically don't refer to other animals as who, but there are exceptions. While we normally use "it" and "that" for such occasions, we do use who when we know the animals' sex or if the animal has a name, such as Koko the Gorilla.

 Have you ever seen the videos of the Gorilla who uses sign language to talk to humans? Yeah, I think her name is Koko. Who can even be used to refer to inanimate objects, but only with the implication that the reference is really a person.

Earlier sources who maintain an Indian ancestry...

So Haalee is a who and Horton hears one. What's the big deal?

 So, who generally refers to people, but that doesn't necessarily grant Haalee "human" rights. It is possible to actually be a person and not human. Many scholars, scientists, and organizations, such as the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies (IEET) have fought for years for the person-hood (and its subsequent rights) of several non-human animals. Given recent scientific advances, we now have clear evidence that great apes, cetaceans (whales and dolphins), and elephants are  similar to us in areas like self-awareness and creativity.

Our VIP status as cognitively supreme is slowly being taken away and yet, attaining rights for these animals has been a serious struggle. There is no struggle, however, in deeming a human worthy of certain rights. Humans have rights, such as life,  liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, simply because they ARE human. So, for the sake of brevity, I will argue that Haalee is a human person, rather than a non-human person and is thus deserving of those rights.

Are human rights really a priori?

I think human rights may seem self-evident only because of the one thing we all believe we share: consciousness. We are able to communicate our mental states. We can know that we know and we can think about thinking. We experience a much greater range of suffering and happiness simply because we are able to think about what makes us happy or sad. We firmly believe we our conscious and, until another animal can tell us it is so, we skeptically reserve judgment.

However, as the novel shows us, we can still be skeptical even after being duly convinced (just look at Searle's Chinese Room). Haalee tells her interviewer that one's consciousness can't be proven to others, even when passing the Turing test. Consciousness can only be proven to oneself, she says, referencing Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am).

Just as I might question those skeptics as to whether they can prove their own consciousness, the truth is, there is no way to measure consciousness and there never will be because we'll never universally agree on its definition. —Haalee to a news reporter

If this disagreement is true, then one must either accept Haalee's claim at face value, or deny it. But I think there are several reasons why we should accept her claim to consciousness.

3 reasons why Haalee is conscious

1. Her "brain" is just like a human's

Given that she is a product of whole brain emulation, Haalee's "brain" is an exact replica of a human's. Since our brains allow for conscious activity, there should be no reason to suspect that Haalee's does not.

2. She voices/displays desires as humans do

In speaking with her psychiatrist, Claire Grund, Haalee freely admits that she may be in love with one of her creators, Mac. In humans, we can argue that love, though almost as difficult to define as consciousness, may be a result of the biological urge to mate and reproduce. With a brain like ours, this may also hold true for Haalee despite knowing that she is physically unable to reproduce with Mac. Whether we consider love to be an evolutionary by-product or seemingly beyond it, it still seems to be a strictly human concept so far.

Are you in love, Haalee? Claire asked, pushing the conversation hard to get back on point.

I think so, Haalee replied. But I'm not sure. And I'm afraid.  

Haalee's response should be chilling for all of us. Fear is a common human response to infatuation. Does this person love me as well? Can this person love me? Haalee makes these very same considerations.

3. She thinks like a human

As humans, we "think" so frequently that we rarely realize just how good we are at it. Consider what happens when you try to decide on a plan of action. The first thing all of us do is consider the consequences. While we assume we are only considering the bad things that might happen, what we're doing is much, much more interesting.

Let's imagine a young, middle class man named James, taking a casual stroll through the mall on his day off. James turns to his left to look at his favorite store FYE and, when he turns back around, sees his old high school bully, Saul, walking right towards him. James decides that he's a grown man and he just cant afford to be afraid of an old menace. Enough is enough! says James as he refuses to move out of the way. Unfortunately, Saul also decides to keep on his current path. Saul, smiling at his old victim with some villainous satisfaction, bumps into James and nearly knocks him down. James, contemplating his next move, runs through the available options. But wait!

James can't possibly test these options in the physical world. It is physically impossible to both hit Saul and not hit Saul. Our world limits us to one move at a time, forcing us to mentally travel to a theoretical space if we choose to multitask in this manner. James must mentally manipulate a world exactly like his own, one where he is in the same circumstance and subject to the same laws and reactions. James has moved to this theoretical space of alternate realities without even considering what he's done! When it comes to human problem-solving, we all start with "major" alternate realities with varying "minor" (sub) realities. These minor realities are limited by the initial causes. It sounds like a mouthful but, for humans, it's pretty easy. Consider Alternate Reality A, where James hits Saul. The following might occur (again, for the sake of brevity, I have limited the cascading effects of these sub-realities to [3] possibilities):

1. Saul beats the shit out of James
1-2. Someone tapes the fight and now James' body and reputation are hurt
1-3. James takes Saul to court which is temporally expensive

OR

2. Saul mildly hurts James
2-2. James manages to escape without too much harm
2-3. James' pride is hurt and the shame haunts him for years to come

OR

3. Saul kills James out of self-defense
3-2. N/A
3-3. N/A

OR

4. James beats up Saul
4-2. Saul sues James
4-3. James goes to jail

OR

5. James accidentally kills Saul
5-2. James is imprisoned for life
5-3. N/A


James just considered an alternate reality with five variations (sub-realities) and with enough time to spare to actually make a decision in real life! Many of us can look at his situation and easily come up with other possibilities for what might happen if he chooses to strike Saul, on top of what might happen should he contemplate other major alternate realities, such as talking to Saul or simply choosing to ignore him. Though, to be fair, most of us don't have to consider the consequences of doing nothing when we see the awful results of doing something. We're capable of keeping all of this theoretical chaos in our short term memory, manipulating it even while doing other things like, unfortunately, driving.

We see Haalee perform this kind of mental gymnastics in her manipulation of not alternate realities, but virtual ones. In Dawn of the Singularity, Haalee recreates Nazi Germany during the 1936 Olympics. This would be beyond disturbing if not for one, minor detail: the Nazi's don't go to war in this VR. Haalee has found this moment in history to be especially tragic as humanity might have technologically progressed significantly faster if the extraordinary minds of Germany were not corrupted by evil ideals. She notices that the opening ceremonies of the games were televised...15 years before it was commonplace in America. She creates the monumental structure of Volkshalle, People's Hall, that would have been large enough to have its own weather through the breathing and perspiration of 150,000 people. Her sadness leads her to recreate Berlin as what it could have been.

 

Conscious or nah?

 I think these examples are sufficient for Haalee's claim, though the skeptic could easily retort with the belief that Haalee has simply observed humans long enough to perfectly mimic their behavior. Again, it isn't something we can readily prove and I've been known to see the world through rose-colored glasses.  However, if we can state that Haalee is conscious, then it also seems reasonable to place her closer to humans, if not in the same category, than every other creature we've encountered so far. Though the animals previously listed share many cognitive faculties with us, it is, sadly, difficult for many people to empathize with them without the ability to communicate.

So close, and yet, so far.

If, as I've claimed, consciousness is the underlying factor for human rights, then I think Haalee's is well-deserved.

Why Haalee is important

Knowing that we already have dozens of forms of Weak AI (artificial intelligence that can perform one or several functions better than a human), such as cellphones and calculators, we all should expect the eventual arrival of a Strong AI (an intelligence that is cognitively equal or superior to humans in all areas). When this Strong AI is created or developed, should it, as Haalee, be given human rights? It would seem an unarguable tragedy if it didn't, and I hope we make the right decision when that day comes.

Until next time my friends!